PlanetsCentral

streu in Re: Player's availability:

Well, it is kind-of egoistic to say "I will not accept decision X"; when you try to get a dozen players to agree, someone has to make compromises. Good for you and bad for me: I do not know what the majority decision is; I was the only one to post here since last Wednesday.

Maybe it looks kind-of egoistic, but i should not to accept the "decision of majority" What i did is register to new VGAP game, to play with 11 players. Now we have just 9 players here, and even if majority of 8 players want to continue playing, but I don't.

I cannot chain anyone to their computer and force them to submit sensible turns. Not even you. However, if there were 8 players that say "continue", player 9 dropping from the game would be the same kind of killjoy as the no-shows. Or as someone dropping in turn 60 after seeing they can no longer reach place one. The problem is: I don't know whether these 8 exist, they didn't articulate their wishes.

But being in a multiplayer game always also is a responsibility. Sometimes it's 10 players entertaining you, sometimes it's you who has to entertain someone. Dropping out if your own entertainment goes below maximum is bad style.

Or, like Hedin says, delete Phoenix 4 and register to the new Phoenix 5, and keep waiting for new players for Phoenix 5.

I'm really can't understand, why you start incomplete games, and make hostruns, while there's not enough players in the game.

So far we had one vote for continuing, one for pause. I paused a little, sort of a middle ground. I understand my job as a service to do what players (note: plural) in a game want -- if I know what this is.

Regarding Phoenix 5: well, create precedents: convince other participants to come over.

--Stefan